Beavah

I agree with everything Twocubdad said, eh? So I don't want him to think I'm pickin' on him by choosin' a phrase from his message. It just struck me, is all: If you don't have a chance of failing, it ain't a test. Maybe I'm just quirky, eh? Dat's what Mrs. Beavah says, anyway, though she uses different words. I don't much care for the obsession with failing that seems to be part of da adult culture of advancement in many units. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with school-style testing, where yeh get a passing or failing grade and then the teacher just moves on. Troops that talk about "failing" are most often troops that offer "classes", eh? That's just not scoutin' in my mind. A scout learns, and a scout is tested, and a scout is reviewed, and a scout is recognized are all just part of da same mentoring process, eh? I don't think the word "fail" is ever used in any of the BSA materials. It's about growth and development, not passing and failing. A scout never fails, eh? All that happens after a test is that he learns what he knows well and what he needs to practice some more. That's not failure, that's just feedback. Yeh set up a tent in a drainage ditch, it gets wet or your PL explains why that wasn't a great choice. No failure. Just learnin'. And since the lad's still learnin', we're just not to review or recognition yet. Can't say I'm a strict adherent to any of da religious views over how that mentoring should be done in a unit. Some units it's the PL's deal, some units it's the SM's gig, some it's a team approach with the committee on reviews, some it's a team approach with the PL's. I reckon it should be a team approach with everybody, except I've found that usually it takes one or two adults who are "keepers of the vision", so to speak, and the rest tend to follow their lead. Otherwise it sorta runs downhill and yeh get awards for settin' up the tent in the drainage ditch. Plus a lot depends on the age and experience of da youth leaders and all that, which varies between units. Beavah

Yah, SeaGull99, maybe I'm missin' it. Yeh said your lad was elected and supposed to have leadership trainin' right afterward in October. Where'd March come from? I think yeh should take a step back and ask yourself "Do you want to be that parent?" You know, the parent that screams at the referee, the parent that goes on a warpath with the coach because their son deserves more playing time, or deserves to make varsity or whatnot? Or do yeh want to be the parent who supports the coach even when the coach is wrong, and lets your son learn from the experience that he's goin' to have to deal with all kinds of people in life. Lots of folks here are scouters, eh? When we read your accounts we cringe a bit, because as scouters we hate to ever see one of our number blow a call or behave poorly toward a kid. So we share your frustration. We'd all disagree with this gent's tactics, if your reportin' and perceptions are accurate. I'd expect his unit commish or CC to be havin' that cup of coffee even before you did. At da same time, we also know that almost all of the adults in scoutin' are really good people - overworked, tired, sometimes stressed people, but good folks. An unreturned phonecall can be a simple as a man's work life or family life needin' to take precedence for a bit, eh? We've all been frustrated and made bad calls at times. Yah, and we've all had to deal with that parent, eh? Makes our volunteer time almost not worth it. Gettin' Star Scout on a schedule isn't worth spendin' a lick of time on. Your son clearly is a lad who will keep up with his scoutin' and make it to Eagle in due course on his own. But right now, demonstratin' to your son how to be understanding and respectful to tired or even errant volunteers is an opportunity of pure gold. Don't waste it. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, Nike's got a good thought, eh? But convene an old-fashioned BOR. One with the lad's peers on it. Boys hurtin' from and not listenin' to adults will often hear their peers. Besides, right now it seems that the other lads are talkin' behind this kid's back. They should learn to step up and give feedback in person. That having been said, the drug use deal is a big deal, eh? That's not the sort of example we want in a youth leader, nor somethin' that most parents will tolerate their kid being exposed to. He's at multiple offenses now. Your first duty as a leader is to protect da program for all of the rest of the boys. We can stretch a bit for a lad who is hurtin', but at some point it ain't just hurting, it's a choice. We have to honor the lad's choice with the consequences it merits, eh? Personally, my guess is that dad's the disciplinarian of the family and his absence is missed. I think any adult male who cares enough about the lad to be "dad" - to read him the riot act and demand better from him is goin' to gain some traction. But that's just a guess. Beavah

Yah, I also am with Lisabob, eh? For da record, a troop certainly can set rules for positions of responsibility like age, or rank, or attending troop leader trainin'. Many good troops do just that. It's expressly permitted in the SM Handbook. Plus, it's just plain good sense to require a lad to be trained for his position. I reckon what's gettin' SeaGull99's goat is not so much that requirement. A brief reflection would say that the requirement is sensible, and if a lad misses the session even for illness he still needs the trainin' and information to be effective. Trainin' is a help to the lad, so that he can succeed. It's also so that the other boys in his patrol get the experience they deserve. An untrained patrol leader hurts other boys' scoutin', and that's not what we want to teach as bein' responsible. What's gettin' SeaGull99's goat is either the SM's failin' to practice "praise in public, reprimand in private", or that SeaGull's son isn't goin' to automatically make rank in the minimum 4-month time. If it's the latter, I'm sorry, Gull, but scoutin' isn't about getting ranks on a schedule or even getting ranks at all. Movin' to Star scout is about your son learning responsibility and leadership, and that typically takes longer than 4 months. Enjoy the journey, and stop pushin'. If it's da former, I'd let the boy address it privately and politely first, eh? But if it's a bigger issue, then a friendly cup of coffee with the SM after the immediate furor dies down is in order, just to offer the gift of feedback. Sometimes good guys get in a rut and don't quite see how they're comin' across. Polite, private, non-threatenin' feedback is the necessary first step. Beavah

Yah, Eagledad, there were so many things yeh said this thread wasn't about that should be taken elsewhere, I'm not sure what the topic is, eh? I really don't have any problem with gettin' da SM's approval for advancement, or for OA, or whatever. Just a normal part of mentorin' and feedback to my mind. Only becomes an issue in those units that get their shorts all in a ball about advancement minutia because they're so dysfunctionally focused on that one method. Sometimes lads need feedback from their peers, and I'd like to see that reintroduced. Sometimes lads need feedback from adults. Workin' 'em both together seems like it's the best way to help a lad learn and grow. B

Yah, I'm with scoutldr. If maturity is da real issue, yeh have to only take lads in the spring of 6th grade. That's sometimes good advice for really immature boys who aren't ready for da separation anxiety. Take a year off and come back in 6th grade and they're rarin' to go. Two months ain't goin' to matter. Up here in da north February is an awful time to cross over, because if the new lads start campin' with the troop right away it's in the toughest weather which they don't have the experience or gear for. Can make their first experiences in a troop bad ones unless da troop is really careful. Better to wait for April. Still gives yeh time to get some campin' time in before summer camp, but in better weather that doesn't demand as much kit. Beavah

Yah, not sure it's even kosher to bring dry ice on a commercial plane, eh? I'm with scotteng. Havin' traveled with youth to far more remote places than USVI, I can't imagine why you'd want to haul food with yeh. The local folks do eat without goin' broke, eh? Plus shoppin' and interactin' with the locals and tryin' out local foods is part of the experience of the trip for the lads. I expect what's goin' on is you're gettin' provisioning prices from a charter boat operation because you're goin' sailing? Yah, sure, those prices are goin' to be nuts. They'd be nuts here on the mainland, too, like buyin' a gourmet hot dog at a resort. Just do what all da rest of the sailors do and walk into the regular grocery store! B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think if yeh have a good mix of kids currently, yeh keep a good mix of kids. I'd be hesitant about splittin'; there's often attrition in webelos at least a bit, eh? Plus yeh seem to have a good thing goin', why mess with success? If yeh do split, don't separate 'em into a strong/mature group and a weak/immature group. Keep the mix so da mature kids get to lead and the immature kids get pushed to grow. As for crossin' over in a couple of years, I think that's best to work out with da troops you're lookin' at. Some troops are set up better to take 'em all at once, some like to get boys in dribs and drabs. I think da former is more common, especially in bigger/more active troops. Let's 'em set up new scout patrols, events to get new guys up to speed together, etc. Also it helps to get 'em started as a group in good weather, before they hit tougher camping. So here in the North, startin' a new scout by himself in January ain't real wise . Beavah

Yah, with due respect to Kahuna... horse hockey! If they aren't enemy combatants covered by da Geneva Conventions, they are civilians engaged in a criminal enterprise. Either way, torture durin' interrogation (includin' waterboarding) is a crime. Like I said, every single time this has been tried anywhere in da world it has resulted in conviction. It is utterly repugnant. The notion that long term physical harm is da standard for definin' torture is hogwash speculated on by that "hack" Gonzales. These days we have the science to stick electrodes into da pain centers of the brain, eh? No long-term physical harm. Leaves hardly a mark. Still torture. More importantly, we Americans have never claimed that human rights are simply an issue of law. Our stance has always been that of our Declaration of Independence, that human rights are God-given and inalienable - and that governments which transgress those rights must be altered or abolished. That is da reason these guys need to be prosecuted, bottom to top. The ridiculous and wicked notion that waterboardin' is an OK thing has penetrated too far into the culture for our well being. As a patriot and a Christian it sickens me. But da way to fix it when moral suasion is ineffective is by fear of prosecution and imprisonment. Beavah

Yah, in most cases I reckon da CO should be the arbiter of the moral/social example of its leaders, eh? When those things come up in units, I tend to shuffle things that way. Caffeine use by adult leaders in an LDS unit is different than in other units. Same with da other stuff. As I've gotten grayer, I admit I wish units were quicker on da trigger for one particular type of adult. I think units should be faster about removin' disruptive/contentious adults who don't play well with others. This is a youth program, eh? Either you're contributin' positively as an adult or you're supporting passively. If you're actually consuming resources and time and energy, you're a burden that should be dumped. Those resources, time and energy are better used for the kids than dealin' with disruptive adults. Beavah

Yah, pjstorer, sounds like there's some story here. We might be able to help yeh a bit more if you told us what was up. The COR can (and often will) take a CC's recommendation to remove an adult leader. Generally speakin', the CC should be makin' that recommendation on behalf of the entire committee, since it's da committee that's charged with recommending adult leadership. There are some times, though, particularly in religiously-run units, where a CC may have a greater role in representin' da CO. There is no obligation that unit committee meetings be open. That's da most common practice, but it ain't required. Even when the normal practice is open meetings, there are times to close 'em. When a committee is considerin' discipline of adult or youth members, considerin' financial aid for needy boys based on family financial circumstances, talkin' about how to support a lad with a private medical condition, all kinds of things. Beavah

Yah, I've never gotten squelch to work. I've also completely lost da thread of the arguments here. Went off into weirdness. I reckon if we just let the national debate be in legislatures rather than courts, we'd end up with the same definition for the start of life as the end, eh? Heartbeat. After fetal heartbeat, legal protection ensues. Before then, it's a matter of personal/religious ethics which merits neither state sanction for committin' nor state fundin' for procuring. If da pro-life lobby-da-politicians crowd were smart, they'd shoot for that, eh? B

Not an issue for lawyers. Dat's what juries are for, eh? Put the men and officials on trial, demonstrate or describe da technique, and let da jury make a finding of fact on whether waterboardin' is torture. Thing is, to my knowledge every case anywhere in da world which has come to trial over da issue of waterboarding has resulted in conviction. The technique was developed by da Inquisition for cryin' out loud. It's been a favorite of Spanish-speakin' despots and communist juntas ever since. Beavah

Yah, da shrill partisan stuff really gets old. I think most hardworkin' Americans are sick of it. It is my understanding that neither Geithner nor Daeschle paid any penalties, just interest. If someone has better information on that point, please provide it. The sources outside the right wingnut uneducated blogs are pretty clear, eh? Daschle paid full penalties as well as interest. IRS waived penalties on Geithner because it was an obscure error and it was his accountant's mistake. Point one - character counts. Neither Geithner nor Daeschle exhibited much of this since they both cheated and both put off dealing with their problems until they believed it was likely they would be appointed to something. False for Geithner, perhaps true for Daschle. Geithner wasn't even aware of da errors until they were caught by Obama's vetting team. Of course, character also counts when makin' accusations. Most of us view it as sinful to bear false witness against thy neighbor. A sad fact that many folks who claim to be fellow Christians forget when they get into a partisan lather. Point two - the laxity and/or incompetence in the vetting. These were self inflicted wounds by the nascent Obama administration. These errors cannot be laid at the feet of the evil republicans, the vast right wing conspiracy, or Fox news. Obama's team caught Geithner's issues, and asked him to pay back taxes from 7 years ago on closed returns which he was under no legal obligation to pay. They didn't catch Daschle's entanglement. But let's also remember that transition teams have very limited budgets and resources, and quite a bit on their plate. Given da state of the nation, I can imagine lookin' into whether Daschle was inappropriately usin' a limo for personal rather than business use was a fair ways down on the list. Daschle deserved the treatment he got, and it was right for him to withdraw. The other two are being pilloried for ordinary errors which they dutifully corrected. I reckon da just penalty for anybody who calls 'em tax cheats is to make 'em endure an endoscopic audit for da last 20 years of the same sort. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, it's interestin' how he's playin' da politics of this, eh? Just yesterday one of the blue dogs leaked that the Obama people had encouraged him to vote against the bill in the House because it had run a bit amok. I see today that there's an effort afoot to strip about $200 billion out of it. Makes me wonder if he isn't playin' a more subtle game than people think. Personally, in it's current form I think he should get out da big red VETO stamp, and do it on prime time. That would get people's attention, and get da nuttier democrats in congress under control. B

The point Christians are makin' with respect to abstinence isn't a public policy one, eh? It's a personal moral one. Churches aren't governments; their primary role is educating and inspirin' folks on personal ethical choices. I can't see anything at all wrong with tellin' young girls and women that sex is best when shared exclusively with someone yeh love in marriage. That seems to be a worthy thing to teach, eh? A bit like da Scout Law. Trustworthy means more than "don't lie". It also means livin' honorably in positive ways. Similarly bein' moral means more than "don't commit abortion". It also means show responsibility, self-control, and commitment. Nuthin' inconsistent or inappropriate about punishing bad acts, but also teaching and tryin' to inspire good acts. As for da punishin' part, seems the most logical person to prosecute for a medical abortion is the doctor, eh? He/she is the one profiting from the act. Seems like the self-mutilation abortions of the despondent teen are better off handled by confinin' to psychiatric care for a while. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, I don't reckon that's da sterling example of rationality in argumentation to which yeh claim to aspire, eh? I reckon you've been spendin' too much time teachin' sophomores. I do agree with yeh, though. As long as a woman is in custody of any defenseless child, born or unborn, she has the ability to abuse or kill it, eh? We can never prevent it entirely. Free will is a God-given gift no human governance can steal. But it's a logical fallacy to claim that it follows we should decriminalize infanticide or abandonment. Abuse of women happens too, eh? Some societies condone it. Others tolerate it. Some criminalize it or make it socially taboo. None can prevent it completely, but I don't reckon that means that we have to condone it. Instead we use all our tools, includin' law, to reduce it. Da question is what do we want to teach? How do we want to respond? What choices do we want to celebrate, and which ones do we want to sanction as a people? Personally, as I've said before, I don't think political lobbyin' is da right tactic for those of us who care about life. This is mostly a ground war. We win it with love and compassion and justice individual by individual. It's not only the law that keeps people from doin' murder, eh? It's social taboo and personal ethics. Folks think that government drives society. Bah, humbug. Government reflects society. As for da rest, you and I both agree that there were hardly any "best minds" at all in da administration of the last 8 years, pro-life or otherwise. Beavah

I voted for GWB. Gave him years of support, and years of benefit of da doubt. Was disappointed, then appalled. I intend to be just as patriotic and support President Obama. That's what citizens do when they care more about the country than their political party, eh? After four years, I'll make a call about whether I'm disappointed or not. Beavah

A bill to proscribe in detail those practices the congress thinks should be prohibited to employees of the federal government, whether CIA, FBI, military, or whatever. Yah, that would be a foolish bill, eh? By enumeratin' prohibited practices, yeh allow everything else. Such a bill would only succeed in permitting a variety of torture practices not anticipated by Congress in writin' the bill. There's nothing particularly ambiguous about our treaty obligations and laws with respect to torture. Doesn't need another law. It needs a jury. I dislike criminalization of policy differences, eh? But this ain't one of 'em. Torture of prisoners is criminal, and criminals should be prosecuted. Beavah

So my answer is that I would not pick the 'point' at which the mass of cells is worthy of state protection. The state should butt out. Yah, so the parents who wanted a child but discovered that it's a lot of work, it throws up on the carpet and just eats and poops.... it's OK for them to destroy that mass of cells? All of us are just a mass of cells, eh? Old folks on medicare are drainin' the national treasury; old folks on pension are bankruptin' our auto companies. Time to discard those masses of cells? The state should butt out. Let those young union guys take care of it. As to the notion of the state protectin' when the people want it to, all of the several states had almost universally determined that abortion should be illegal. It was only seven old guys in funny black costume robes who chose to ignore the people and dictate their own judgment. I reckon that yeh can't find any rational, testable way of determinin' when any human should be defended. Which means your thinkin' is about as valuable as claimin' the world is run by magic gremlins. Might be true, but it's not useful. Beavah

Yah, does your camp have fire buckets? Yeh could always tell all da boys that if anyone is smokin' they should assume da person is on fire and put him out! Beavah

Yah, packsaddle in da parent thread seemed astonished by the deductibility of scoutin' expenses. Since tax season is just startin', it's worth perhaps remindin' folks of what they can deduct. Best guide out there was put together by Tom Turba, an accountant and tax professional and scouter. Tom's been kind enough to keep it up to date for the scoutin' community. Here's a link to what I think is da most recent: http://www.troop957.com/docs/misc/Scouting-and-Taxes-Apr08.pdf I have not personally vetted this document, so as with all things exercise your own due diligence. Previous versions I found to be quite accurate. Perhaps da rest of this thread our accountant members can use to give additional insight or answer questions? Beavah

Did we incinerate alive all those Japanese civilians, men, women, and children, out of anger? Did we do that? Aw, packsaddle. Now you're descendin' to Merlyn's level. Nitpick da wording when yeh can't address the argument. Thesis: New technology is a magical genie, that once released in society can never be checked. Refutation: Mustard gas. Atomic weapons. Yeh can never quite eliminate the freedom of choice of the wicked to use such things, but you can effectively check 'em by law and social taboo and threat of retribution. Counter-Argument: You used the word "anger" (as a common colloquialism) for "in war", nyah-nyah. Doesn't just apply to weapons, eh? I expect law and social taboo will eliminate a whole class of financial derivative instruments (yet another "genie") in da next few years. Only you irrational scientist types seem to believe in unstoppable magical genies. Beavah

Yah, pack, generally speakin', when a writing refers by quotation to a previous author, the writin' is probably respondin' to that author. "Pointy hat" was ASM915, eh? Though I can certainly see how you'd be self-conscious about that sort of comment. Still waitin' on your well-reasoned and testable position on when life begins and is worthy of protection, eh! Surely you're not one of those professors who ridicules the work of young lads like TheScout but fails to hold yourself to the same standard? Beavah

Yah, I expect few of us would pass da vetting process without findin' something amiss in our taxes. Do yeh really have receipts for those scout trips you took? I had no problem with Geithner. The odd treaty status of da IMF would fool any accountant unless they regularly did returns for employees of foreign embassies and da UN. That's obscure law. It's also just a workin' guy makin' a mistake on his taxes. I have no problem with some of Daschle's mistakes. Takin' a deduction for a donation to a wounded vet that didn't go through a qualified charity is an error, but one that I reckon most Americans would forgive without a second thought. What I dislike about da whole thing is this notion that a former Senator can somehow get a million dollar a year job and a private limo for personal use. "Consulting" for a firm that largely benefited from legislation he helped pass. Forget the tax bit, there's just way too much pro quo goin' on for a prior quid. Yeh can't tell me that Tom Daschle really has the experience to advise on media investments. He should be disqualified for that reason. Da tax thing is just the byproduct of a culture of entitlement to wealth by virtue of bein' a former senator. That ain't the same things as Geithner. Geithner actually worked for a living. How 'bout followin' the lead of the Energy Department, eh? Instead of appointin' a politico, perhaps we can appoint someone with real experience, like a Doc with deep experience in Public Health. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)